Healthcare News
When is a Vaccine not a Vaccine? - Part I
This may well prove to be our most controversial piece to date but hey, don’t shoot the messenger! All of the information I am sharing below is publicly available and referenced so in-keeping with our aim of stimulating logical thinking and discernment, I urge you all to conduct your own research and draw your own conclusions. It is a vast subject so I am breaking it down into parts, starting here with Part I.
So let’s go back to the very beginning when the Covid shots were first rolled-out under their Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) and look at what constitutes an EUA product.
Below you can see what threshold needs to be attained before an EUA is granted.
These conditions are pretty self-explanatory and I shall address point 2 later in the Series but for today I want to focus on point 4.
No alternatives.
Potential alternative products may be considered “unavailable” if there isn’t enough supply to meet the need, or “inadequate” if the treatment can’t be widely used the same way by all populations.
So let’s delve a little deeper into that condition. At the time, many in the scientific community were suggesting the use of Ivermectin (IVM)1, Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)2 and Chlorine Dioxide (CLO2)3 to name but three. Both IVM and HCQ are FDA-Approved medications with a 60 year + safety record, are very inexpensive and are widely available. Indeed IVM is used extensively across Africa to combat malaria.(Red Flag #1).
So what happened?
Well Big Pharma couldn’t allow People to be aware of these alternative treatments otherwise they would never have obtained the EUA for their very expensive mRNA jab! So in collaboration with a captured FDA, CDC and the Big Tech platforms they systematically set out to denigrate the use of these other treatments together with any Medical Professional that was promoting them. They even pressured The Lancet into publishing a fake study outlining the dangers of using HCQ for the treatment of Covid claiming it could scar your heart. This is rather ironic given what we know today but I’ll return to that aspect another time. Needless to say, The Lancet were forced to retract that Study, a very rare event in their 197 year history and with it went their reputation.4 (Red Flag #2).
The late Dr Zelenko successfully treated thousands of Covid Patients in New York using his Zelenko Protocol which originally consisted of Zinc, HCQ, Vitamin C and Vitamin D until the FDA and CDC began shutting down supplies of HCQ5 (all in the name of Science apparently) whereupon Dr Zelenko had to substitute HCQ with Quercetin instead.
It usually takes years of clinical trials to bring a new vaccine to market but now all of a sudden we had 3 in the space of 9 months or so. (Red Flag #3).
So the 3 key questions I was asking back in 2021 which more People should have been in my opinion, were:
How does this new mRNA technology actually work?
What are the ingredients?
How long does the Spike Protein production inside the body continue for?
No one was willing or able to provide the answers, not least the GP’s (Red Flag #4). What also emerged was the missing or blank inserts when these jabs were administered especially at the drive-thru Centres by unqualified Personnel! (Red Flag #5). When these alarms were first raised, the fact-checkers were quick to jump on it to explain there was no sinister reason for this, it was simply because all of the information that would normally be on the insert was now available online and could more easily be updated. (Red Flag #6). We are all aware that “online” disenfranchises a large swathe of the population so wouldn’t it be logical and in the Public interest to provide both? This would then undermine any “conspiracy theory” and be fully transparent.
So to the millions who took the jab without seeing the inserts or getting answers to the 3 questions I posed above I have one more question to ask:
How were you able to provide Informed Consent?
Informed consent is a principle in medical ethics and medical law and media studies, that a patient must have sufficient information and understanding before making decisions about their medical care. Pertinent information may include risks and benefits of treatments, alternative treatments, the patient's role in treatment, and their right to refuse treatment. In most systems, healthcare providers have a legal and ethical responsibility to ensure that a patient's consent is informed. This principle applies more broadly than healthcare intervention, for example to conduct research and to disclose a person's medical information. Within the US, definitions of informed consent vary, and the standard required is generally determined by the state. Informed consent requires a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications, and consequences of an action. To give informed consent, the individual concerned must have adequate reasoning faculties and possess all relevant facts. Wikipedia
In terms of relevant facts whilst People were being injected through 2021, the Clinical Trials were still on-going and only concluded as recently as 2022 and 2023 as can be seen on ClinicalTrials.gov
Pfizer / BioNTech 6
Moderna7
AstraZeneca 8
So much for informed consent.
Now let’s turn to the matter of the FDA’s desire to keep all the Pfizer trial data on which it based its decision to authorise the shot, hidden for 75 years! A Federal Judge ruled as follows:9
Accordingly, having considered the Parties’ arguments, filings in support, and the applicable law, the Court ORDERS that:
The FDA shall produce the “more than 12,000 pages” articulated in its own proposal,see ECF No. 29 at 24, on or before January 31, 2022.
The FDA shall produce the remaining documents at a rate of 55,000 pages every 30 days, with the first production being due on or before March 1, 2022, until production is complete.
To the extent the FDA asserts any privilege, exemption, or exclusion as to any responsive record or portion thereof, FDA shall, concurrent with each production required by this Order, produce a redacted version of the record, redacting only those portions as to which privilege, exemption, or exclusion is asserted
The Parties shall submit a Joint Status Report detailing the progress of the rolling production by April 1, 2022, and every 90 days thereafter.
SO ORDERED on this 6th day of January, 2022.
Mark T. Pittman UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So why did the FDA seek to hide the data for 75 years? So much for transparency.
Moving from transparency to transmission, below is Janine Small (Pfizer) giving evidence to the European Parliament over whether Pfizer knew if the jab stopped transmission before it was released to the Public. The simple answer was no they didn’t but isn’t that the purpose of a vaccine?
Truly quite shocking.
In a further sleight of hand, the CDC quietly changed the definition of what constituted a vaccine around August 202110 11
Here is the pre-August 2021 version:
Followed by the post-August 2021 version:
So we moved from
A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease.
to
A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.
Subtle but very significant.
Whilst the talking-heads would argue that it is normal to review and update such definitions from time to time, personally I just found the timing very odd. (#Red Flag 7).
So all of these red flags that I have been waving throughout this piece is not simply about being clever with hindsight but genuine questions and concerns that I have been raising for the past 3 years which has seen me banned and suspended on several social media platforms on numerous occasions.
At this juncture I would like to introduce you to the work of
of . Karen is a med-legal advisor and biotech analyst with 25 years experience. Her detailed analysis of the Patents and filings in relation to these jabs is second to none but may prove to be a hard read for many.It is a very well-researched piece but here is one of the shocking takeaways:
Unfortunately for Pfizer, the COVID-19 mRNA injections meet the exact definition of a bioweapon per 18 USC 175.
WOW!
Who saw that coming?
Please do read her analysis, research it yourself, consider the implications and draw your own conclusions.
So When is a Vaccine not a Vaccine?
HWSS Newsletter & Healthcare News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or donor subscriber.